Email this article to a friend

Every powerful state relies on specialists whose task is to show that what the strong do is noble and just and, if the weak suffer, it is their fault.

In the West, these specialists are called “intellectuals” and, with marginal exceptions, they fulfill their task with skill and self-righteousness, however outlandish the claims, in this practice that traces back to the origins of recorded history.

With just that much background, let us turn to the so-called unipolar moment. Symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago, the collapse of the Soviet Union putatively left a unipolar world, with the United States as the sole global superpower and not merely the primary superpower, as it was before.

Within months, the George H. W. Bush administration outlined Washington’s new course: Everything will stay much the same, but with new pretexts.

We still need a huge military system, but for a new reason: the “technological sophistication” of Third World powers. We have to maintain the “defense industrial base” – a euphemism for state-supported high-tech industry.

We must maintain intervention forces directed at the energy-rich Middle East–where the significant threats to our interests “could not be laid at the Kremlin’s door,” contrary to decades of deceit.

All this was passed over quietly, barely reported. But for those who hope to understand the world, it is quite instructive.

The George W. Bush administration went far to the extreme of aggressive militarism and arrogant contempt. It was harshly condemned for these practices, even within the mainstream.

Bush’s second term was more moderate. Some of the most extreme figures were expelled: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and others. Vice President Richard Cheney could not be removed because he WAS the administration. Policy began to return toward the norm.

As Barack Obama came into office, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice predicted he would follow the policies of Bush’s second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style that seems to have charmed much of the world.

One basic difference between Bush and Obama was expressed very well in another era, by a senior adviser of the Kennedy administration at the height of the Cuban missile crisis.

Kennedy planners were making decisions that threatened Britain with obliteration, but they were not informing the British about it.

At that point the advisor defined the “special relationship” with Britain: “our lieutenant–the fashionable word is `partner.”’

Bush and his cohorts addressed the world as “our lieutenants.” Thus, in announcing the invasion of Iraq, they informed the United Nations that it could follow U.S. orders or be “irrelevant.” Such brazen arrogance naturally aroused hostility.

Obama adopts a different course. He politely greets the leaders and people of the world as “partners,” and only in private does he continue to treat them as “lieutenants.”

Foreign leaders much prefer this stance, and the public is also sometimes mesmerized by it. But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric and pleasant demeanor.

The current world system remains unipolar in one dimension: the arena of force. The United States spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on its military and it is far more advanced in the technology of destruction.

The United States is also alone in having hundreds of global military bases and in occupying two countries in the crucial energy-producing regions.

NATO is part of the Cold War apparatus that Obama can deploy.

As the unipolar moment dawned, the fate of NATO came to the fore. The traditional justification for NATO was defense against Soviet aggression. With the USSR gone, the pretext evaporated. But NATO has been reshaped into a U.S.-run global intervention force, with special concern for control over energy.

Post-Cold War NATO has inexorably pushed to the east and south. Obama apparently intends to carry forward this expansion.

In July, on the eve of Obama’s first trip to Russia, Michael McFaul, his special assistant for national security and Russian and Eurasian affairs, informed the press, “We’re not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense.”

McFaul was referring to U.S. missile defense programs in Eastern Europe and to NATO membership for Russia’s neighbors, Ukraine and Georgia, both steps understood by Western analysts to be serious threats to Russian security that would likely inflame international tensions.

A few weeks ago the Obama administration announced a readjustment of U.S. anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe. That led to a great deal of commentary and debate, which, as in the past, skillfully evaded the central issue.

Those systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But that cannot be the motive. The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the Earth – unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated.

The purpose of the U.S. interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran – that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent. In this regard, antimissile systems are a first-strike weapon, and that is understood on all sides. But that seems to be a fact best left in the shadows.

The Obama plan may represent less provocation to Russia but, rhetoric aside, it is irrelevant to defending Europe–except as a reaction to a U.S. or Israeli first strike against Iran.

The outcry over Iran overlooks the Obama administration’s assurance that the Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement is exempt from the just-passed U.N. resolution on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India greeted by announcing that it can now build nuclear weapons with the same destructive power as those in the arsenals of the world’s major nuclear powers, with yields up to 200 kilotons.

And, over the objections of the United States and Europe, the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities for inspection. Israel announced it would not cooperate.

Though the world is unipolar militarily, , since the 1970s it has become economically “tripolar,” with comparable centers in North America, Europe and northeast Asia. The global economy is becoming more diverse, particularly with the growth of Asian economies.

A world becoming truly multipolar, politically as well as economically, despite the resistance of the sole superpower, marks a progressive change in history.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the author of dozens of books on U.S. foreign policy. His most recent book is Who Rules the World? from Metropolitan Books.

Ya know , basically my personal feelings towards Obama are that he is at his core a good man , that the situation is the problem at this point ; more than the individual in office...
When I voted for him , I knew what I was getting , so there is no need to bad mouth the guy now ; at less not yet....
The global oligarchy that we speak of has been in effect for quite some time ; I , again personally ; never expected Obama to be able to fix any of these problems in the first year in office ; much less 4 years , if at all....
It is clear to Blackhorse ( yea I know some don't appreciate me referring to myself in the third person , but this is the so-called cyberspace , so I figure why not indulge a little ), anyway , it is clear that in order to change this paradigm , we as the people suffering under this industrial military complex , whether here in the states or in the diaspora , have got to come up with new systems of resistance in order to , at the very lest , stay neck to neck with our common oppressor....
Now the old systems of resistance did work ; we know this because after the 60's revolution , the plutocracy increased it's emphasis on the build up of military power.... Those that were involved in that stuggle , scared the crap out of the ruling class...The 60's revolution was a military defeat for the left , but out of that defeat , folks learned a lot about how the power elite function....
We know that they LOVE two things above all else , even their own children ; and that is money and much more important than money is POWER...Now their true power is based in the resources that they so-called " free trade for "....This terminology is just a dodge for the fact that they are actually " stealing " these resources from the indigenous populations of the world....
So the solution to this extremely complex problem is based on our ability too , marginalize them financially....Deinvestment in their financial institutions , such as the large corporate banking concerns , would be a logical start...These funds could then be reinvested in smaller , locally owned banks and or credit unions...This strategy was discussed on the news program DemocracyNow earlier this month , the date escapes me at this moment , but the information is available on their website DemocracyNow.org...
So these are the strategies that we must begin to seriously contemplate , if we are going to make a dent in this systematically corrupt , xenophobically unscrupulous , oligarchically facsist state run gov't.....
So with these last words , Blackhorse bids all that are willing , too live for the people...Think strategically , do not think in a reactionary manner , this is exactly what the enemy of the people want and profit from , the reactionary movements of the so-called masses.....Posted by blackhorse on 2010-01-22 14:34:51

I trust the Obama administration to successfully manage the nuclear crisis with Iran as much as I did the Carter administration to bring a successful conclusion to the U.S. Embassy Tehran hostage crisis from '79-'81.
The latter was not resolved until a new president took office, and I bet the former will not be either in this case.
What the failures of the Obama administration's foreign policy towards Iran will mean to the rest of the world is a completely different question, and one fraught with the most severe consequences for Middle East peace this decade and beyond.Posted by patrick hattman on 2010-01-05 13:22:22

There is a famous sentence by Lampeduza in his book "Il Gattopardo" which says: "Something must change so that everything remains the same". The apparent openings shown lately are just a way of letting the huge amount of steam accumulated by lies, unjustice, accumulation of money and power don't end up in a violent volcano eruption. So, for some time we will watch new tricks trying to make us believe the rulers of the world have decided to become open-minded, generous and loving, ready to accept dissenters and free-thinkers while they design new ways of domination or distract people's attention of real causes of the mess we are in by producing new fears, uncertainties, manipulation of news and all the uncovered weapons they handle so cleverly but no real changes will be allowed. So be prepared, and be strong.Posted by Maria on 2009-10-12 21:51:06

Good article by Noam Chomsky.
I'm gratified and VERY surprised that the New York Times news service is circulating an article by Chomsky, who has been banned from the pages of the New York Review of Books since the late 1970's. (In the late 1960's and early 1970's Chomsky wrote some of the most famous articles in the NYR of B, but then the political tides shifted.)Posted by Nevada_Ned on 2009-10-12 21:02:12

I absolutely agree with mathrise's comment.. There is a natural law which cannot be twisted by man: that of cause and effect and if you look back as to what USA and some of Europe's countries have done to Africa and Latin America (to mention just a couple of victims) with total arrogance and even using the name of God as their co-pilot, you cannot expect a humane world any more than you can expect justice. The current model is so utterly cruel because it is based on causes started long ago by a kind of rapacious sub-species and no substantial changes can ocurr unless each man assumes its share of responsibility on this chaos. Manufacturing weapons is evil, since weapons have but one purpose: to kill ,sending troops to other countries regardless of the excuse mentioned to do so, brings about death and pain on innocents, endless greed can only be satisfied by slavery of millions. Changing the name of War Ministry to Defense Ministry is a world-wice hypocrisy. If nobody wished to go to war, nobody would need to be arming themselves and spending fortunes on armed forces. I know it is hard to admit it, but the only way out is by searching for the causes of all this, instead of beating around the bush (excuse my language) expecting miracles.Posted by Maria on 2009-10-08 20:14:26

As the USA falls economically, politically and spiritually, the intensely wicked ruling class increasingly bleeds the middle class and crushes the underclass, especially the long-suffering slave descendants who have no Human Rights. Since America has always been a racist oligarchy since its inception, no one believes that the system plans to suddenly become humane just because it now presents a humane looking spokesperson to the world. Although the Obama Administration claims to be striving for peace in diverse war-torn regions, the grim reality is that it cannot even bring peace to Chicago's southside or any other decaying inner city in the USA because it does not acknowledge the root causes of long-term oppression, specifically ethnocide and forced assimilation. As long as President Obama opposes Human Rights and Reparations for 250 million Afrodescendants in the western hemisphere while continuing to wage unjust wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and pursuing neo-colonial ambitions in other lands, no civilized people can trust him.
Sincerely,
Senator Malik Al-Arkam
www.allforreparations.orgPosted by mathrise on 2009-10-06 07:30:35